Commercial Solicitors
58 Friar Gate
Derby
DE1 1DF
Tel: 01332 221722
Fax: 01332 221727
Email: info@bradleyandjefferies.co.uk
Latest News
All the latest from Bradley and Jefferies news desk!
Gender Reassignment in the Workplace – the inside view - 13th March 2012
CPD – 1 Hour
Directions: http://www.hallmarkhotels.co.uk/our_hotels/derby/location/ TIME TABLE
Please send BACS payments to details below & forward remittance advice to rh@bjcs.co.uk Cheque payable to: ‘Bradley & Jefferies Solicitors’ To book your place, please contact Rabina Hussain at rh@bjcs.co.uk or 01332 221722
|
Robin White of Old Square Chambers offers a unique personal perspective in this area. She has practised in all aspects of employment, equality and discrimination law for 16 years and was a manager in industry for 5 years before that. She acts for employers and employees, and practices in all parts of the UK including Scotland and Northern Ireland. In an open and wide-ranging session, Robin considers the above issues
Amanda Jefferies of Bradley & Jefferies Commercial Solicitors
Amanda is one of the co-founders of Bradley and Jefferies and has worked in Derby for over 16 years. She has always worked and lived in the East Midlands having trained and worked post qualification with a major regional heavy weight firm of solicitors in Nottingham. Amanda heads the Employment Law Team at Bradley & Jefferies and has a wide breadth of experience in tribunal cases and is well known for offering no nonsense employment advice to commercial clients and senior employees.
|
Bradley & Jefferies is a firm of commercial solicitors based in Derby, which specialises in Employment Law and Employment Disputes, Commercial Property Law, Company and Commercial Law and Commercial Dispute Resolution, including debt recovery. We work throughout the Midlands, England and Wales.
Gender Reassignment in the Workplace – the inside view
The best statistics are that one in 5,000 of the UK population will undertake gender reassignment. The chances are that most medium and large employers will have to deal with the difficult issues that this can generate at some time or other.
- Do you understand the transition process and how it affects the individual and other workers?
- Can you negotiate safely through the minefield of appropriate and inappropriate terminology?
- What does the law protect and what not?
- Would you be confident in managing an employee transitioning in the workplace?
- How does gender reassignment interact with religious rights?
- Could you defend a claim of gender reassignment discrimination?
Previous attendees have commented:
" A very engaging speaker"
"...incredibly interesting and of huge value..."
"I feel in a position to at least start to try to understand what an employee might be going through and the types of issues and problems they might face"
"...invaluable if we have to advise on any of these issues...."
Amanda Jefferies, Director at Bradley & Jefferies Commercial Solicitors speaks at:
Acas East Midlands Employment Relations Forum on 14th April 2011.
Resolving Workplace Disputes
The government’s consultation on reforming the employment tribunal system ends on 20th April. If implemented, the proposals could have radical implications for employers and employees. Whilst at first sight, the majority of proposals appear to be employer friendly; they are not entirely so. The proposal that employers who are found to have breached the law be fined, in addition to being ordered to pay compensation could, in particular cause problems for employers.
For more detail, see the notes of Amanda’s presentation which she gave at a recent Acas Employment Relations Forum, detailing the proposals
Should you have any queries about the proposals or indeed any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact Amanda Jefferies or Luke Phelan…..
DEFAULT RETIREMENT AGE: IMPLICATIONS OF ITS ABOLITION
March 2011
The law relating to default retirement age is currently undergoing radical change.
The Government was committed to reviewing the default retirement age (“DRA”) in 2011 however; this review was brought forward to 2010, largely "to reflect the change in economic circumstances since it was introduced".
A key challenge to the DRA by Age Concern, ultimately failed in the High Court but the judge commented that the DRA had a "greater discriminatory effect than is necessary on a class of people who both are able and want to continue in their employment."
The Government began the process of phasing out the DRA within an initial 12 week consultation, which concluded on 21st October 2010 and this was subsequently confirmed in a Government response in January of this year. More recently, draft regulations have been published (the Draft Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations 2011 and these were put before Parliament, following amendments, on 1st March 2011.
The key implications of the draft regulations are as follows:-
- The 5th of April is the final day on which an employer can issue a notice of retirement under the DRA procedure;
- Notice periods for retirement are between 6 and 12 months and, therefore, the last day on which an employee can be compulsorily retired will be 5th April 2012 (i.e. 12 months);
- From the employees point of view, the final day on which an employee can make a request to the employer not to retire on the intended date of retirement is 4th January 2012; and
- If an employer agrees to allow the employee to work beyond their intended day of retirement, the maximum extension possible is six months.
The key question which arises out of the abolition of the DRA (and which will no doubt be of particular importance to employers) is will it be unlawful to retire people at all? Alternatively, is it just the age at which you do so that will be a question to be addressed by the courts or tribunals?
Current thinking is that there should not be an outright bar on retiring people. Indeed in its foreword to the Government response to the consultation, the Government states:-
"these changes do not mean that individuals can no longer retire at 65 - simply that the timing of that retirement becomes a matter of choice rather than compulsion".
Obviously where there is consent by both parties to retire, the position is likely to be relatively straight forward, but where the employee objects, this may become more contentious. It will still be possible to retire people compulsorily where this can be “objectively justified”.
Employers will no longer be able to assume 65 is a “risk free” age to retire employees. Instead the employer will have to show objective justification for dismissing at any age where the reason is retirement. In all circumstances employers will have to justify the decision to retire. This is likely to include identifying a legitimate aim to be achieved and showing that the means used to pursue it (i.e. retirement) are proportionate. Some historic case law for non-retirement cases may be of some guidance but, no doubt, a string of new cases over the coming years will provide more certain examples of what constitutes a relevant “justification” of a “proportionate means” of achieving a “legitimate aim”.
In summary, for existing employees, with any dismissal because of age taking place on or after 6th April 2011 it is likely to constitute direct age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, unless it falls within the transitional provisions mentioned above or, it can be objectively justified.
Employers should seek specific advice before taking any action of if they consider an employee is nearing retirement age. The transitional regulations can be quite complex and it could be very easy to inadvertently fall foul of this new law.
For more detailed advice, please do not hesitate to contact Amanda Jefferies or Luke Phelan at Bradley & Jefferies Commercial Solicitors (01332 221722).
BANKRUPTCY AND SHADOW DIRECTORS – KARL OYSTON HIGHLIGHTS
17.11.2010
The recent news regarding former Blackpool Football Club chairman Karl Oyston has highlighted the implications of being a director or shadow director of a company and being declared bankrupt. Although Oyston’s bankruptcy has since been annulled, there were concerns in the interim period about Oyston’s role in the club which sparked the Premier League to mount investigations, as its rules forbid any person who has been declared bankrupt from serving as a club chairman or director, not to mention the restrictions under the Companies Act 2006.
Oyston suddenly stepped down as chairman and director of the club days before announcing his bankruptcy back in August 2010, without giving any reason. It soon emerged that he was involved in an imminent bankruptcy hearing and was actually declared bankrupt soon after.
However, Oyston vowed to remain as acting Chief Executive until the end of the season, or in the interim until a new Chairman could be found. This caused concern as he could potentially be seen as acting as a 'shadow director' of the club, which is forbidden under the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act 1986.
So what constitutes a shadow director? Generally, it is a person in accordance with whose instructions or directions the directors of a company are accustomed to act. Further guidance has evolved from case law as follows:-
- It requires more than the minority of the directors to follow the shadow directors instructions
- The other directors must follow these instructions for a period of time as their regular practice
- Instructions do not need to cover every aspect, or even most aspects, of the company’s activities, nor do they need to be overt instructions
- Acting in secrecy is not a necessary factor to constitute a shadow director
Although Oyston later had his bankruptcy annulled, it highlights an important issue for all directors. With the current economic climate still producing more and more bankrupts, this is an issue which all business owners need to be aware of. If you do think this is an issue which could affect you or your company, it is always best practice to pick up the phone and speak to one of our commercial solicitors, who will be able to guide and advise you on this issue in more detail.
FACEBOOK – EVEN BILLIONAIRES HAVE SHAREHOLDER FALLOUTS…
16.11.2010
Most of us are familiar with the social networking phenomenon that is Facebook. You may also be aware that a film based on the lives of co founders Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin during the developmental stages of the company has been released which sheds some interesting light on the fights and feuds that have affected them, despite all the millions in the bank. It goes to show how even the simplest issues can affect us all and what lesson shareholders can take from this sorry tale.
As is so often the case, things turn messy when the cash starts to flow and owners become richer and richer. The once best friends and college buddies relationship deteriorated due to legal wranglings regarding ownership, shareholdings and intellectual property of the company.
Former best pals Saverin and Zucker fell out spectacularly and gave the lawyers the ultimate payday when Saverin, who was deemed to be the moneyman of the enterprise was unceremoniously ousted from his position as Finance Director, and allegedly diminished his share capital from 34% to 0.03%. When the company took off and venture capitalists became involved, a new shareholders agreement was produced and in a decision that would costs him greatly, Saverin didn’t bother to read the clauses and just signed it based on trust. Big mistake. This failure to read a contract properly led him to lose a 34% share in what is today a $25 billion company.
This article doesn’t attempt to put off joint ventures and collaborations, as every one has different skills to make a business idea flourish. However. It really highlights the importance of having a properly drafted formal shareholder agreement which all parties understand and approve. This agreement should clearly set out the limits, scope and position of each shareholder which will inevitably minimise any issues later down the line, especially if the company proves to be a success.
Remember the golden rule, never be tempted to sign an agreement without thoroughly reading it through and if in doubt, having an advisor to check it out. You never know, it could save you $25 billion!
LOCAL SPONSORSHIP
Bradley and Jefferies support the local community through a mixture of sponsorship linked to their marketing strategy and pro bono work through their involvement in Pro Help – the network of Derby professionals who provide support for charities and other community groups who otherwise might not have access to the advise of professionals such as lawyers accountants and surveyors and architects. Recent sponsorship initiatives include a dressage competitor and Breadsall Cricket Cap.
MINI SPONSORSHIP
Bradley and Jefferies are sponsoring local racing driver David Hale and his speedy mini. Matthew Bradley said, "As a new company ourselves, but looking to grow bigger, we like the idea of supporting ventures such as this".
David races souped up mini's and the car has already been shown racing on TV, even if it was at 2 o'clock in the morning! The next chance to see David race is at Donington in the BRSCC Mini Festival. We wish him all the best for this race and the rest of the season and will be there to cheer him on.
